How has the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines and interpreted the meaning of the word "intentionally" in relation to child support?

Ontario, Canada


The following excerpt is from Harvie v. Paliulis, 2013 ONCJ 721 (CanLII):

[83] In Drygala v. Pauli, supra, the court interpreted section 19(1)(a) by stating that “intentionally” means a voluntary act and that a parent is intentionally under-employed if that parent choose to earn less than he or she is capable of earning. The court does not need to find a specific intent to evade child support obligations or bad faith.

Other Questions


Can a court impute income under section 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines where the payor has pursued a deliberate course of conduct for the purpose of evading child support obligations? (Alberta, Canada)
Is a party intentionally underemployed or unemployed intentionally imputing income under section 19(1)(a) of the Employment Guidelines? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the court interpreted the Guidelines for Child Support Guidelines in a family law case? (Ontario, Canada)
How has the court treated a claim for future post secondary education expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the meaning, effect and application and application of Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
What is the test for intentional underemployment under s. 19(1)(a) of the Child Support Guidelines? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a payor impute income under Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the meaning, effect and application of Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines? (Nova Scotia, Canada)
How has the court considered student loan payments as a factor in opposing a request for child support under the Child Support Guidelines? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the relevant cases in which a court has found that a child has changed to become a child of the marriage and is entitled to parental support under section 2 of the Divorce Act? (British Columbia, Canada)